4.7 Article

Prediction of AD dementia by biomarkers following the NIA-AA and IWG diagnostic criteria in MCI patients from three European memory clinics

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 1191-1201

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2014.12.001

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; MCI; MRI; PET; Diagnostic criteria; Diagnostic accuracy

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [05817]
  2. Strategic Research Program in Neuroscience at Karolinska Institutet
  3. Swedish Brain Power
  4. sottoprogetto finalizzato Strategico
  5. Programma Strategico, Ricerca Corrente Italian Ministry of Health [71, PS39]
  6. Fitness e Solidarieta' fund raising campaigns

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Proposed diagnostic criteria (international working group and National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) include markers of amyloidosis (abnormal cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] amyloid beta [A beta]42) and neurodegeneration (hippocampal atrophy, temporo-parietal hypometabolism on [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), and abnormal CSF tau). We aim to compare the accuracy of these biomarkers, individually and in combination, in predicting AD among mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients. Methods: In 73 MCI patients, followed to ascertain AD progression, markers were measured. Sensitivity and specificity, positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios, and crude and adjusted hazard ratios were computed. Results: Twenty-nine MCI patients progressed and 44 remained stable. Positivity to any marker achieved the lowest LR- (0.0), whereas the combination A beta 42 plus FDG-PET achieved the highest LR+ (6.45). In a survival analysis, positivity to any marker was associated with 100% conversion rate, whereas negativity to all markers was associated with 100% stability. Discussion: The best criteria combined amyloidosis and neurodegeneration biomarkers, whereas the individual biomarker with the best performance was FDG-PET. (C) 2015 The Alzheimer's Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据